lawlz so this question is a monster, but watching JY's explanation helped.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-24/

He explains that the larger argument pattern is:

A --> absurd

not(absurd)

-------------

not (A)

This really helped clarify what I was seeing here. BUT what I can't really fully understand is why we even need to further connect A-->absurd. Isn't A--->absurd already spelled out to us as a premise? Shouldn't we just accept that is what we're given and prove that the necessary assumption is not(absurd)? I understand how "popular" connects "intending pleasure" to "sales figures" but am failing to understand this on a larger level, I think.

w00t for last minute fine tuning with monster questions!

thanks in advance for any clarification here!